It's simply a marketing ploy. The Premier League are trying to create a world star out of Bale, when he is not close to being one yet. Modric was more deserving of being in the list than Bale. He's been more consistent, and has a better injury record.

"Giggs winning the PFA award proved why the award is worthless" Yes Deeprick, a bit like the Carling Cup being worthless , until this year , when you thought Arsenal would win it . Wasn't so worthless then , was it ? Oh, and you lost that final too..

So, why didn't Giggs get the award in 2000 ? because , according to you, he played brilliantly from the 'climax' of that season, and into the next. Or are votes only taken from the beginning of the next season ?

The post I was replying to was suggesting that Bale shouldn't have won the award as he was the best player in the league for only 3 months. I was (slightly tongue in cheek) just pointing out that when Giggs won the award he wasn't the best player in the league for even one month that season.

As a reward for his career though, couldn't agree more.

As for should have won it in 99 ... if you mean 1999-2000 season then I'll bow to your knowledge about whether Keane or Giggs deserved it more.

When everybody says Giigs should have won it in '99, it is mainly that he was on fire towards the end of the Treble-winning season, but his form had been pretty poor for much of that season. He came good towards the climax of the campaign, like Rooney appears to be doing at the moment. But nobody would argue that Rooney deserves the PFA award this season, even if he inspires United to win the double. The same was true of Giggs in '99 who certainly hadn't put in consistently good performances for much of the campaign.